PERTH AND KINROSS PROPOSED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Issue 19
Airfield Safeguarding
Development plan
reference:
EP13 - Airfield Safeguarding, page 60
Reporter:
Hugh M Begg
Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including
reference number):
Flemings of Rosyth (00648)
Allan Smith (00649)
Barbara Fleming (00854)
Susan Fleming (00855)
Councillor Michael Barnacle (02633)
Scottish Gliding Centre (09134)
Rhonda Dick (09196)
Dr Peter Symon (09723)
Maureen Cuthbertson (10146)
John Williams (10210)
Ken Miles (10236)
Provision of the
development plan
to which the issue
relates:
Policy EP13, requiring an independent assessment of the impact of
development proposals where they may affect the safe operation of
airfields.
Planning authority’s summary of the representation(s):
Representations seeking removal of Policy EP13
Maureen Cuthbertson (10146/1/001 & 10146/3/001): The existing Policy 49 Kinross Area
Local Plan 2004 (S4_Doc_199) is not fit for purpose and Policy EP13 contains nothing
that would address the issues and ongoing problems that this policy has created for the
Council and the planning applications of residents living on the perimeter of Portmoak
Airfield and should be withdrawn from the Local Plan. The policy will place a
disproportionate burden on one or two residents on the airfield perimeter.
The Policy is not in accordance with SPP February 2010 (S4_Doc_076), SPP 1
Development Management Guidelines Page 4 Paragraph 23 (S4_Doc_277) as it places
the interests or activities of one person over the interests and activities of another. Policy
49 Kinross Area Local Plan 2004 (S4_Doc_199) is not fair or proportionate and Policy
EP13 does nothing to address this. It disadvantages residents on the perimeter of the
airfields.
Flemings of Rosyth (00648/1/001): There is no provision in the policy which requires
aerodrome operators to be checked on compliance with CAP 793 (Core_Doc_123). The
policy is unworkable given the past history at Portmoak Airfield. When an airfield is
unlicensed there is no vehicle to determine which party is in the right, even after obtaining
independent assessments. The policy puts undue power in the hands of aerodrome
operators, who have nothing to lose.
Susan Fleming (00855/1/001); Barbara Fleming (00854/1/001): The policy is biased
towards airfield operators and unfair to existing businesses in the area which wish to
expand. The policy does not provide clarity on how the Council will determine planning
273
PERTH AND KINROSS PROPOSED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
applications and independent decisions are formed where the Airfield operator and
applicant through an independent assessment have opposing views.
Representations seeking amendments to Policy EP13
Ken Miles (10236/1/012): Object to Balado Airfield being included as its validity as an
Airfield is questionable.
Scottish Gliding Centre (09134/1/002): New wording for the policy is suggested in order
to accord with the principle of protection of public safety and to accord with the Civil
Aviation Authority position Civil Aviation Act 1982 Section 16 (5) (S4_Doc_197)on the
role of airfield operators in assessing the impact of proposed developments.
Allan Smith (00649/1/001): Concerns regarding the fairness and independence of the
policy, particularly how a fair and unbiased conclusion is reached when the policy does
not contain a procedure for obtaining a truly independent airspace design opinion to be
used as an authoritative tool in evidence. The assessment should not be paid for by the
airfield or applicant but independently by the Council to avoid any accusations of a biased
nature; the policy should be fair and proportionate, as required by SPP (Core_Doc_048).
Rhonda Dick (09196/1/001): There is no real material basis for setting up this excessive
planning policy. The expert opinion should be commissioned by the body that must make
the decision; the Council should bear this cost. The Scottish Gliding Union believes this
policy is a total barrier to development at the Causeway and this issue must be
addressed. A study of the planning applications will show the previous Policy 49 Kinross
Area Local Plan 2004 (S4_Doc_199) to have been ineffective. Policy EP13 does not
address these existing issues.
See attached appendices with this representation. (Core_Doc_124)
Dr Peter Symon (09723/3/001): Respondent’s comments relate to Errol Airfield. The
policy does not include Errol Airfield. The airfield is permitted to be used five days a week
for flights and if the Plan does not envisage the airfield being used for flights during the
lifetime of the Plan this should be stated. If an application is made to continue the use of
the airfield for flights beyond the current permission then the airfield should be
safeguarded.
General comments
Councillor Michael Barnacle (02633/1/022): Policy is welcomed. Welcome the
requirement for an independent assessment. Note the importance of good
neighbourliness but emphasises the need for this to work both ways with airfield
operators following good practice and adhering to the conditions of airfield planning
approvals.
John Williams (10210/1/001): Support Policy EP13. The Scottish Gliding Centre at
Portmoak is well established but there is a risk that inappropriate development around
the airfield could threaten its ongoing operation. No potentially threatening development
should be approved without a proper impact assessment.
Modifications sought by those submitting representations:
Representations seeking removal of Policy EP13
Maureen Cuthbertson (10146/1/001 & 10146/3/001); Flemings of Rosyth (00648/1/001);
Susan Fleming (00855/1/001); Barbara Fleming (00854/1/001): Amend Plan to remove
274
PERTH AND KINROSS PROPOSED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Policy EP13.
Representations seeking amendments to Policy EP13
Ken Miles (10236/1/012): Amend Plan to remove Balado Airfield from Policy EP13.
Scottish Gliding Centre (09134/1/002): Amend Plan to revise Policy EP13:
‘Developments will be refused if they are likely to have an adverse impact on the safe
operation of aircraft from, or on public safety in the vicinity of, the following airfields:
•
Perth Airport
•
Portmoak Airfield
•
Balado Airfield
•
Strathallan Airfield
Under Section 16(5) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 the comments of the aerodrome
management concerning the effect of certain development proposals must be carefully
considered. The Civil Aviation Authority considers that if an aerodrome operator advises
that an airfield’s established amenity would be affected by a development, that advice
may be considered as expert testimony so far as the technical issues are concerned.
Applicants for planning consents within the safeguarding zones of these airfields (as
defined in the Supplementary Guidance) should consult the airfield operator prior to
submitting an application. The applicant may be required to obtain from the airfield
operator an assessment of the impact on the safe operation of the existing facility.
Note: Supplementary Guidance will define the areas where consultations will take place
and further expand the limitations of incompatible activities and navigational obstructions
etc.’
Allan Smith (00649/1/001); Rhonda Dick (09196/1/001): Amend Plan to revise Policy
EP13 to remove the requirement for the applicant to provide a report. This should be
changed to require the Council to undertake this work. Policy EP13 should be reviewed
annually or bi-annually.
Dr Peter Symon (09723/3/001): Amend Plan to include ‘Errol Airfield’ under the list of
airfields in Policy EP13.
Summary of responses (including reasons) by planning authority:
Representations seeking removal of Policy EP13
Maureen Cuthbertson (10146/1/001 & 10146/3/001); Flemings of Rosyth (00648/1/001);
Susan Fleming (00855/1/001); Barbara Fleming (00854/1/001): The Policy has been
worded to comply with the requirements of Circular 2/2003 (Safeguarding of Aerodromes,
Technical Sites and Military Explosives Areas) (S4_Doc_803), which require Planning
Authorities to set out arrangements by which ‘a planning authority, before granting
permission for the development of land forming the site of or in the neighbourhood of an
aerodrome … for which a safeguarding map has been furnished to the authority, shall, to
the extent specified on such a safeguarding map in relation to particular parts shown
thereon, consult the consultee.’
It simply sets out the requirement for consultation to take place without introducing bias.
The Council prepared Supplementary Guidance on Airfield Safeguarding
(Core_Doc_070) and, following a period of consultation, the comments received were
275
PERTH AND KINROSS PROPOSED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
considered by the Council. The Reporter may wish to refer to the relevant committee
report for further information. Report to Perth & Kinross Council Enterprise and
Infrastructure Committee, 7 November 2012: ‘Local Development Plan Supplementary
Guidance Phase 1’ (Core_Doc_160).
No modification is proposed to the Plan.
Representations seeking amendments to Policy EP13
Ken Miles (10236/1/012): Planning consent was granted in 2011 for Class 11 use
including microlight flying at this airfield, which has subsequently been implemented
(09/01289/FLM) (S4_Doc_693). The airfield is operational and it is therefore appropriate
for it to be included in the Plan.
No modification is proposed to the Plan.
Scottish Gliding Centre (09134/1/002): The revised wording relates to the relative weight
to be placed on comments from an airfield operator, which is not a matter for the Plan.
Allan Smith (00649/1/001); Rhonda Dick (09196/1/001): Amend Plan to revise Policy
EP13 to remove the requirement for the applicant to provide a report. This should be
changed to require the Council to undertake this work. Policy EP13 should be reviewed
annually or bi-annually.
No modification is proposed to the Plan.
Allan Smith (00649/1/001); Rhonda Dick (09196/1/001): Controlling the means by which
reports are obtained would be beyond the remit of the Plan. It is appropriate that the onus
be placed on the applicant to demonstrate that a proposal is acceptable, including where
necessary the submission of an independent assessment prepared by a suitably qualified
person. This does not prevent the Council from seeking further expert evidence should
they feel it would aid the decision making process. This procedure echoes that for the
provision of flood risk assessments, noise assessments and Environmental Impact
Assessments, where the onus is placed on the applicant to provide the information in the
first instance.
No modification is proposed to the Plan.
Dr Peter Symon (09723/3/001): The airfield at Errol is in operational use however
planning permission (S4_Doc_804) has been granted for a residential development
within the boundaries of the airfield. If this permission is implemented the airfield
safeguarding for Errol will no longer apply. The Supplementary Guidance on Airfield
Safeguarding (Core_Doc_070) carries a note to this effect.
No modification is proposed to the Plan.
Reporter’s conclusions:
Preliminary Matter
1. In response to a request for further information the council has confirmed that revised
supplementary guidance was approved by the November 2012, which was not referred to
in the schedule 4. It has also suggested revisions to the text of Policy EP13 in order to
deal with Dundee Airport (the safeguarding zone for which extends into Perth and
Kinross) and has clarified what is meant by an unlicensed airfield (which are the airfields
276
PERTH AND KINROSS PROPOSED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
that are intended to be covered by the supplementary guidance). This additional
information has been taken into account in reaching conclusions on this issue.
2. Supplementary guidance is the appropriate location for detailed material, allowing the
Proposed Plan itself to focus on vision, the spatial strategy, overarching and other key
policies, and proposals. This examination of the Proposed Plan makes no comment on
the content of the supplementary guidance on airfield safeguarding.
Representations seeking removal from the Plan of Policy EP13: Airport Safeguarding
3. The respondents who seek the removal of Policy EP13 do so because previous
experience of the application of Policy 49 of the Kinross Area Local Plan 2004 has been
demonstrated, in their view to be “not fit for purpose”. It has led, in their view, to
development management decisions unfairly weighted against proposed developments in
the vicinity of Portmoak Airfield. Whatever, may be the merits of that view it is not a
matter which forms part of this examination.
4. Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) confirms that the planning system does not exist to
protect the interests of one person or business against the activities of another.
However, it is inevitable that, in regulating the use and development of land, the planning
system will regularly impose restrictions upon land owners’ ability to develop their land.
On occasion, the effects of a particular planning policy may not be felt evenly and it may
be perceived that the policy is unfair or unreasonable for that reason. However, provided
that the aim behind the imposition of such controls is to further the public interest rather
than to prioritise the interests of one party over another, there is nothing unreasonable or
unfair in such an approach. In the case of Policy EP13, it is clearly in the public interest
to ensure safety in and around airfields. The effect of the policy is not to prevent
development within the vicinity of airfields but to ensure that it is demonstrably unlikely to
have a detrimental impact upon safety. Development which can be demonstrated not to
threaten aircraft safety would comply with the policy and would not be restricted. This is
an entirely reasonable approach and there are no grounds for deleting the policy.
Representations seeking modifications to Policy EP13: Airport Safeguarding
5. It is perfectly understandable that the Scottish Gliding Centre should be concerned
with public safety and that airfield operators should be consulted before a determination
is made on a planning application relating to land within an airport safeguarding zone.
However, any planning application must be determined by the council as planning
authority in accordance with the Planning Acts rather than by reference to other
legislation.
6. Rather than list within the policy itself, all of the airfields to which it will apply, the
council has suggested listing the two licenced airfields (Perth and Dundee) and referring
to the remainder under the category “Unlicensed airfields, as defined in Supplementary
Guidance”. This would accord with SPP’s expectations for brevity and would be an
appropriate modification to the policy text that is set out in the Proposed Plan. With that
in mind, it is unnecessary to address the representations which challenge the inclusion or
exclusion of specific unlicensed airfields within the text of the policy.
7. As far as the provision of an independent assessment is concerned, it is the
responsibility of an applicant for planning permission to provide the planning authority
with sufficient supporting evidence for an informed decision to be made. In some cases
that may include the submission of material of a technical nature. The council has drawn
277
PERTH AND KINROSS PROPOSED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
attention to the manner in which flood risk assessments, noise assessments and
Environmental Impact Assessments are undertaken. Depending on the details of what is
proposed, the impact of development nearby on the safe operation of aircraft from
unlicensed airfields could be a further example where a similar approach is justified. In
these cases the evidence in support of the application will carry more weight if it is
provided by way of an independent assessment carried out by a suitably qualified person.
The same applies to technical evidence provided by third parties who have concerns
about the impacts of the proposed development. Where special expertise is not available
“in house” the planning authority is bound to call on its own suitably qualified consultants
to assist in the evaluation of the evidence placed before it. Drawing these matters
together, there need be no modification in response to these representations.
8. The council has accepted that the policy should make reference to Dundee Airport, as
its safeguarding zone extends into Perth and Kinross. A modified note to the policy is
proposed, which should provide greater clarity on the legislation and associated materials
relevant to airfields and airfield safeguarding . Further clarity will be provided in the
supplementary guidance. With that in mind, to assist users of the plan the council may
decide that there is merit in clarifying beyond doubt within the guidance exactly what it
has in mind in its use the terms licensed airfield and unlicensed airfield and the word
airport and distinguishing these from the generic term aerodrome.
Reporter’s recommendation:
Policy EP13
1. Delete the text of Policy EP13, and replace it with the following:
“Policy EP13: Airfield Safeguarding:
Planning permission will be refused for developments likely to have an unacceptable
impact on the safe operation of aircraft from the following airfields:
•
•
•
Dundee Airport;
Perth Airport; and
Unlicensed airfields, as defined in Supplementary Guidance.
Applicants for planning consents within the safeguarding zones of these airfields may be
required to provide an independent assessment of the impact on the safe operation of the
existing facility, prepared by a suitably qualified person.
Note: Licensed airfields are safeguarded in line with CAA document CAP 168 “Licensing
of Aerodromes”. Unlicensed airfields are safeguarded in line with CAA document CAP
793 “Safe Operating Practices at Unlicensed Aerodromes”, and Supplementary Guidance
will define the areas where consultations will take place and consider prejudicial
developments including incompatible activities and navigational obstructions.”
278